OVERCOMING CHILDREN’S GENDER-TYPED PREFERENCES FOR
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: AN INTERVENTION STUDY
A.C. Harrison and S.A. O’Neill, Department of Psychology, Keele University
Introduction
Social learning theory (e.g., Mischel, 1970) stresses the importance of
observational learning in the acquisition of gender-typed behaviour. Accordingly,
exposure to counter-stereotypic role-models has often been used to modify children’s
gender-typed preferences (e.g., toy, activity, occupations), (Katz, 1986). Findings
have, however, been mixed. Extensive exposure altered both young children’s
stereotypes and verbally stated preferences (Koblinsky & Sugawara, 1984), but
another sustained, 10 week intervention programme did not produce any significant
differences in the gender-typed occupational preferences of kindergarten children
(Weeks & Porter, 1983). Results have been similarly inconclusive for short-term
interventions. DeLeo, Moely, and Sulzer (1979) reported provision of role-models to
be effective in modifying the gender-typed beliefs of 4-6 year olds, whereas television
presentation of counter-stereotypic role-models met with little success with either 7
year olds (Drabman, Robertson, Patterson, Jarvie, Hammer, & Cordua, 1981) or 1012 year olds (Williams, LaRose, & Frost, 1981). Huston (1983) argued that brief
exposure to one model is unlikely to produce powerful effects because whilst this
strategy might influence children’s stated beliefs about what is masculine or feminine,
it does not, however, lead to changes in attitudes or affective reactions to genderinconsistent behaviour.
1
Studies have been most successful with 4-10 year olds. Weeks and Porter
(1983) proposed that attempts to influence children’s gender-typed beliefs and
preferences may be more successful when such stereotypes become more flexible.
Thus, the present research focused on 7-8 year olds, the age at which gender-typed
beliefs become more flexible (e.g., Carter & Patterson, 1982). This is also the age at
which the majority of children in British schools are first offered the opportunity to
learn a musical instrument (the domain focused upon in the research).
A growing body of research suggests that children have well-established
gender-stereotypes regarding musical instruments (e.g., Abeles & Porter, 1978;
Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Harrison & O’Neill, in press; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996), and
that these stereotypes are closely related to their preferences for musical instruments
(Harrison & O’Neill, in press; O’Neill & Boulton, 1996). However, very little
research has been conducted to develop intervention programmes designed to help
children overcome gender-stereotyped beliefs and self-imposed restrictions on their
choice of musical instruments. The need to address gender-typed beliefs in other
domains such as sport, science, and mathematics has been recognised and attempts
made to challenge such beliefs. It is important that issues regarding gendered
participation in music are similarly addressed.
For the most part, research has focused on establishing the existence, rather
than challenging the maintenance of gender-stereotyped beliefs about musical
instruments. Many researchers have, however, stressed the need to do so, particularly
by the use of role-models. For example, Kelly (1997) suggested that presenting
counter-stereotypic role-models may be “used to encourage the performance of
gender-specific instruments by the non-traditional gender” (p. 54).
2
Extant research (e.g., Bruce & Kemp, 1993; Pickering & Repacholi, 1998; Tarnowski,
1993) suggests that the provision of counter-stereotypic role-models may reduce
adherence to gender-stereotypes in expressing preferences for musical instruments.
However, methodological limitations of these studies have meant that it is difficult to
assess the efficacy of such an approach. The majority of studies have taken no
measurement of initial preference, which means that researchers could not conclude
that a preference change occurred, as many authors of these studies have suggested.
No studies in this area have examined any enduring effects of intervention strategies.
The present study aimed to further our understanding by conducting a short-term
longitudinal study to investigate the effect of exposing 7-8 year olds to instruments
played by either stereotypic or counter-stereotypic role-models.
Research Questions
The key questions were:
1.
Do 7-8 year old girls’ and boys’ preferences for musical instruments change
after they are presented with role-models which either agree or disagree with
the children’s stereotypes?
2.
To what extent do any changes in children’s instrument preferences remain 7
months later?
Based on the findings of Bruce and Kemp (1993), we expected that girls
would show greater preference for ‘masculine’ instruments (trumpet, guitar, drums)
after observing female musicians playing those instruments, and that boys would
indicate stronger preference for ‘feminine’ instruments (piano, flute, violin).
Method
3
Participants
Participants were 357 children (M = 185, F = 172) aged 7 and 8 years (Mean
age = 8:1 years, SD = .29, range 7:7 to 9:3) attending junior schools in the south-west
region of England. Twelve schools participated in the study, forming three clusters of
four schools. Schools were selected to include rural and suburban catchment areas
with pupils from working and middle class families. This age group was targeted
because the majority of children had not yet participated in formal instrumental
instruction, but would be offered the opportunity to begin learning an instrument at
school within the next year.
Measures
A full description of measures is provided by Harrison and O’Neill (in press).
Individual interviews were designed to obtain information about the children’s
preferences for, and gender-stereotyped beliefs about, specific musical instruments.
Participants were presented with line drawings (without performers) and audiocassette
recordings of ‘masculine’ (trumpet, guitar, drums) and ‘feminine’ (piano, flute, violin)
instruments. They were asked to rank-order the six instruments according to their
preferences, from the one they would most like to learn to play to the one they would
least like to learn to play. Children’s gender-stereotyped beliefs about the instruments
were assessed by asking children to indicate whether the six instruments would be
played by girls, boys, or both boys and girls. Children also completed a classroombased measure of instrument preferences. This comprised a single sheet with the same
line-drawings of the instruments as used in the interviews. Participants were asked to
circle and number the instruments in order of preference.
4
Intervention concerts
The research design involved presenting a series of short demonstration
concerts to two of the three school clusters during the research period. A full
description of the intervention concerts is provided by Harrison and O’Neill (in
press). The concerts took place during the same week, after completion of Time 1
interviews. Schools were randomly assigned into three groups. Cluster 1 schools
received concerts played by gender-consistent role-models (e.g., female musician
playing piano, male musician playing guitar). Cluster 2 received concerts played by
gender-inconsistent role-models (e.g., female musician playing guitar, male musicians
playing piano). The third group of schools did not receive concerts. All musicians
were peripatetic music teachers and competent performers. The same music was
performed to all schools and was selected to contrast in both tempo and musical style.
Procedure
Measures were administered on three occasions. At Time 1, instrument
preferences and gender-stereotyped beliefs about those instruments were assessed
during individual interviews. 234 participants were interviewed by the female
researcher, and 123 children were interviewed by a male research assistant.
Preferences were also assessed with a classroom-based measure. Intervention concerts
were performed at two of three clusters of schools approximately one month after
Time 1. Instrument preferences were measured using a classroom-based measure
immediately after the concerts (Time 2) and approximately seven months after the
intervention concerts (Time 3). All follow-up (Time 3) interviews were conducted by
the female researcher.
5
Prior to the Time 1 interviews, the researcher was introduced to the children in
the classroom by the class teacher. The children were informed about the study and
reassured that no-one in the school would be told about their replies. The children's
consent to participate was obtained by asking them to raise their hands if they were
happy to help the researcher in "trying to find out what girls and boys think about
some activities that children do". Only one child declined to participate. Parents
were also contacted by letter prior to the study and invited to alert the relevant school
if they did not wish for their child to participate in the study. Interviews took place at
the selected schools in a quiet place, usually in the corridor or school library. Prior to
each individual interview, in order to facilitate honest answers and satisfy ethical
guidelines, participants were again told that their replies would remain confidential
with respect to the adults and children in their school. They were told that the
interview was not a test and that there were no right or wrong answers, and that they
may stop at any time if they so wished.
The classroom-based measure of instrument preferences was administered
when all interviews had been completed (Time 1). Immediately following the concerts
(Time 2), the children returned to their classrooms and their instrument preferences
were assessed using the same classroom-based measure. For schools in Clusters 1 and
2, this was administered immediately following the concerts. Cluster 3 schools
(control schools) were visited by the research assistant approximately one month after
Time 1 and the same measure administered.
The follow-up phase of the study (Time 3) was conducted approximately
seven months after the intervention concerts. We had aimed to commence the followup phase six months after the concerts, but this was not possible due to constraints of
the schools’ time-tables. Prior to the Time 3 interviews, the researcher was re-
6
introduced in the classroom by the class teacher. The children were reminded about
their previous interviews. Interviews were conducted in a similar manner to the Time
1 interviews.
Results
Instrument preferences
87.4% of the children were present at Time 3 (n = 312, M = 155, F = 157).
Harrison and O’Neill (in press) reported that girls liked piano and flute less when they
had seen a man play the instruments. Boys liked guitar less when they had seen a
woman play the instrument. Both girls and boys and liked drums more and violin less
regardless of the gender of the musician they had observed playing these instruments.
The present study aimed to investigate whether there was a lasting effect of providing
intervention concerts on participants’ gender-typed instrument preferences. Tables 1
(females) and 2 (males) shows the mean rank given for each of the six instruments by
participants from each of the three school clusters at Time 1, Time 2 and Time 3. Data
are taken from the classroom-based measure.
Six repeated-measures ANOVAs were carried out on each instrument
separately to investigate any lasting effect of the intervention concerts on female, and
separately, male participants’ preferences. How much male, and separately, female
participants liked each instrument were the dependent measures, with one betweensubject factor (school cluster) and one within-subject factor (three levels of time
period – Time 1, Time 2, Time 3).
7
Female participants
There was a main effect of Time for piano (F (2, 292) = 5.62, p < .005) and
drums (F (2, 292) = 16.09, p < ,0005). A main effect of Cluster was found for piano
(F (2, 292) = 3.07, p < .04) and guitar (F (2, 292) = 3.34, p < .04). There was also a
Time x Cluster interaction for piano (F (4, 292) = 4.40, p < .002), violin (F (4, 292) =
3.97, p < .005), and drums (F (4, 292) = 4.39, p < .002).
Post hoc one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare the female
participants’ preferences for piano, violin, drums and guitar for each of the school
clusters at each time period (Time 1, Time 2, Time 3) in order to investigate any
lasting effect of providing gender-consistent or gender-inconsistent role models.
Cluster 1 (gender-consistent role-models)
For the violin, there was a main effect of Time, F (2, 80) = 4.85, p < .01.
Female participants indicated less preference for violin at Time 3 (Mean = 3.56, SD =
1.52) than at Time 1 (Mean = 2.85, SD = 1.15), t (1, 40) = 2.80, p < .01). There was
no significant difference in preference for the violin between Time 2 and Time 3. This
indicates some lasting effect of the intervention concerts on the preferences of girls in
Cluster 1 for the violin. There were no significant differences for any of the other
instruments.
Cluster 2 (gender-inconsistent role-models)
There was a main effect of Time for piano (F (2, 100) = 10.66, p < .0005) and
drums (F (2, 100) = 14.97, p < .0005). Female participants indicated more preference
for piano at Time 3 (Mean = 2.59, SD = 1.78) than at Time 2 (Mean = 3.47, SD =
1.91), t (1, 50) = 3.24, p < .002. There was no difference between their liking for
8
piano at Time 1 and Time 3, indicating the decrease in the girls’ preference for piano
immediately following the concerts did not last.
Female participants liked drums more at Time 3 (Mean = 4.17, SD = 1.82)
compared to Time 1 (Mean = 4.77, SD = 1.49), (t (1, 51) = 2.57, p < .02), but less at
Time 3 (Mean = 4.14, SD = 1.82) than at Time 2 (Mean = 3.24, SD = 1.90), (t (50) =
2.71, p < .01), indicating that the increase in their liking for drums lasted to some
extent seven months later. They liked violin less at Time 3 (Mean = 3.54, SD = 1.55)
compared to Time 1 (Mean = 2.94, SD = 1.35), t (1, 51) = 2.34, p < .03), but there
was no difference in how much they liked violin between Time 3 and Time 2. There
was also a non-significant trend for flute to be ranked lower at Time 3 than at Time 1.
Cluster 3 (no concerts)
Surprisingly, participants ranked the violin more favourably at Time 3 than
both Time 1(t (39) = 2.56, p < .02) and Time 2 (t (38) = 2.42, p < .02), even though
they had received no intervention concerts.
Male participants
There was a main effect of Time for piano (F (2, 252) = 5.62, p < .005), and
drums (F (2, 252) = 4.94, p < .01), and a Time x Cluster interaction for drums (F (4,
252) = 2.37, p = .052), and flute (F (4, 252) = 2.55, p < .04.
Post hoc one-way ANOVAs were carried to compare preferences for flute,
piano and drums for each of the school clusters at each time period (Time 1, Time 2,
Time 3). We also compared preferences for violin and guitar as male participants’
preferences for these instruments altered following the concerts and we wanted to
examine if this change persisted seven month later.
9
Cluster 1 (gender-consistent role-models)
There was a main effect of Time for piano (F (2, 252) = 3.94, p < .03) and
drums (F (2, 252) = 3.95, p < .03). Male participants liked piano more (Mean = 3.12,
SD = 1.60) and drums less (Mean = 2.37, SD = 1.37) at Time 3 compared to Time 2
(piano, Mean = 3.83, SD = 1.47, t (1, 40) = 2.59, p < .02; drums, Mean = 1.83, SD =
1.02, t (2, 40) = 2.19, p < .04. There was no significant difference in preferences for
drums between Time 1 and Time 3, indicating that the increase in preference
immediately following the intervention concerts did not last. There were no
significant differences in preferences for any of the other instruments.
Cluster 2 (gender-inconsistent role-models)
Participants liked flute less (Mean = 4.60, SD = 1.42) at Time 3 compared to
Time 2 (Mean = 4.08, SD = 1.54), t (1, 46) = 2.66, p < .02). There was also a nonsignificant trend for participants to indicate greater liking for violin at Time 3 than at
Time 2, but less liking for guitar at Time 3 than at Time 1. There were no significant
differences in rankings of the six instruments by male participants in the Cluster 3
schools (controls).
Comparison of participants’ gender-stereotyped beliefs at Time 1 and Time 3
Harrison and O’Neill (in press) reported that male and female participants had
similar ideas about which sex would play specific instruments at Time 1 – they
considered piano, violin and flute were ‘for girls’ and trumpet, guitar and drums to be
‘for boys’. In the follow-up phase, we were interested in whether the children’s
gender-stereotyped associations of instruments had altered since Time1 (seven
10
months after intervention concerts). We compared ‘flexibility’ (the number of initial
‘both’ responses) of gender-stereotypes at Time 1 and Time 3. We also examined any
changes in participants’ gender-typed beliefs about masculine, and separately,
feminine instruments, comparing the children’s forced-choice selections since the
forced-choice format measures primarily knowledge of stereotypes rather than
attitudes to gender-roles (Signorella, Bigler & Liben, 1993).
Proportionally more female, and separately, male participants changed their
stereotypes of ‘masculine’ (trumpet, guitar, drums) instruments from “for girls” to
“for boys” (females, 27.4%; males, 28.9%) than changed their opinion from “for
boys” to “for girls” (females, 15.0%), X2(1) = 5.87, p < .02; males, 10.9%, X2(1) =
18.99, p < .001. Thus, whilst stereotypes of instruments did not change greatly after
the concerts, when children altered their stereotyped-beliefs about instruments, they
tended to change their opinion to the ‘correct’, culturally accepted stereotype.
Flexibility of gender-stereotypes
Following a similar procedure to that used by Serbin, Powlishta, and Gulko
(1993), a “flexibility” score was computed from the number of “both” responses
given. “Flexibility” refers to the extent to which the child believes that a culturally
gender-stereotyped activity or role is appropriate for both females and males (Serbin
et al, 1993). Scores could range from 0 to 6. There was no significant difference
between male and female participants’ flexibility scores at Time 1 or Time 3.
However, male participants showed more flexibility at Time 3 (Mean = 2.88, SD =
1.33) than at Time 1 (Mean = 2.62, SD = 1.45), t (155) = 2.00, p < .0001. Similarly,
female participants scored higher on flexibility at Time 3 (Mean = 3.08, SD = 1.34)
than at Time 1 (Mean = 2.78, SD = 1.44), t (156) = 2.31, p < .0001. These findings
11
are consistent with those of Serbin et al (1993), who noted an increase in flexibility
scores in second and third graders, the age group in the present study. We also
compared female and male participants’ flexibility scores at the two time points
within each school cluster. Male participants attending Cluster 1 (gender-consistent)
schools scored higher on flexibility at Time 3 (Mean = 2.70, SD = 1.17) (t (42) =
2.02, p < .05) than at Time 1 (Mean = 2.26, SD = 1.26). There was a non-significant
trend for female participants in Cluster 3 (control) schools to score higher on
flexibility at Time 3 (Mean = 3.53, SD = 1.28) than at Time 1 (Mean = 3.13, SD =
1.53). This suggests that the overall increase in flexibility was attributable more to
age-related change rather than any possible influence of intervention concerts.
Discussion
We reported previously that there was an immediate effect of providing
counter-stereotypical role-models on boys’ and girls’ preferences for genderconsistent and gender-inconsistent instruments (see Harrison & O’Neill, in press, for
discussion of results). The present study indicated some lasting influence of the
intervention concerts on the children’s instrument preferences. Boys who saw a
woman play guitar continued to like it less, and liked violin less regardless of whether
they had seen a man or woman play it. The increase in their liking for drums did not
last. Girls still liked violin and drums more (after seeing a man or woman play the
instruments), and flute less (after seeing a man play it) seven months after the
concerts. However, the decrease in girls’ liking for piano (after seeing a man play it)
did not last.
These results suggest that the decrease in liking for same-sex instruments did
to some extent endure over seven months. Thus, we found more enduring effects of
12
providing role-models compared to other studies designed to challenge children’s
gender-typed beliefs. However, our study suggests that exposing children to counterstereotypic role-models is not necessarily effective in either the short- or long-term.
For example, girls actually liked flute less after seeing a man play it, and this effect
was still evident seven months later. Other studies in the literature have reported
negative effects of such strategies. For example, eighth grade boys expressed more
stereotypical attitudes about women’s roles after watching counter-stereotypic
advertisements compared to stereotypic commercials. Guttenbrag and Bray (1976)
presented participants with films and stories about women with counter-stereotypic
roles. Whilst female participants’ stereotypic attitudes decreased significantly, male
participants in fifth and ninth grade showed more stereotypical attitudes following
presentation of the role-models.
Our data suggests that children were more likely to change their preferences
for instruments rather than the stereotype itself. Thus, findings indicate that presenting
counter-stereotypic role-models may be an ineffective strategy for challenging
children’s gender-stereotyped beliefs. More research is needed before we will have a
better understanding of the best way to present instruments to children if we are to
assist them in overcoming the tendency to restrict instrument choice along grounds of
gender. It may be that role-models should be presented separately in single-sex teams
to overcome the negative effect we observed in our study (see also Matteson, 1991).
In the mainstream gender literature, longer and more interactive intervention studies
have been more successful (e.g., Koblinsky & Sugawara, 1978; Weeks & Porter,
1983). Despite various methodological problems, Tarnoswki’s (1993) study suggested
that gender-neutral instrument presentation workshops (over a period of eight weeks)
may be beneficial in encouraging children to hold gender-neutral beliefs about the
13
gendered nature of musical instruments. We propose that it may not be enough to
merely expose children passively to musicians that either do or do not conform to
their stereotypes, rather it may be necessary for children to engage actively in
considering the role of gender in playing instruments through special programmes
designed to raise their awareness and develop more gender-neutral attitudes.
References
Abeles, H. F., & Porter, S. Y. (1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 65-75.
Bruce, R., & Kemp, A. (1993). Sex-stereotyping in children’s preferences for musical
instruments. British Journal of Music Education, 10, 213-217.
Carter, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1982). Sex roles as social conventions: the development
of children‘s conceptions of sex-role stereotypes. Developmental Psychology,
18, 812-824.
Delzell, J. K., & Leppla, D. A. (1992). Gender associations of musical instruments
and preferences of fourth-grade students for selected instruments. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 40, 93-103.
DiLeo, J. C., Moely, B. E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1979). Frequency and modifiability of
children‘s preferences for sex-typed toys, games, and occupations. Child Study
Journal, 9(2), 141-159.
Drabman, R. S., Robertson, S. J., Patterson, J. N., Jarvie, G. J., Hammer, D., &
Cordua, G. (1981). Children‘s perceptions of media-portrayed sex roles. Sex
Roles, 7(4), 379-389.
Guttenbrag, M., & Bray, H. (1976). Undoing sex stereotypes: Research and resources
for educators. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14
Harrison, A. C., & O'Neill, S. A. (in press). Children' gender-typed preferences for
musical instruments: an intervention study. Psychology of Music.
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex-typing. In E. M. Hetheringon (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Socialization, personality and social development (Vol. 4, pp.
288-467). New York: Wiley.
Katz, P. A., & Boswell, S. (1986). Flexibility and traditionality in children's gender
roles. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112(1), 103-147.
Kelly, S. N. (1997). An investigation of the influence of timbre on gender and
instrument association. Contributions to music education, 24(1), 43-56.
Koblinsky, S. A., & Sugawara, A. I. (1984). Non-sexist curricula, sex of teacher and
children’s sex-role learning. Sex Roles, 10(5/6), 357-367.
Matteson, D. R. (1991). Attempting to change sex role attitudes in adolescents:
explorations of reverse effects. Adolescence, 26(104), 885-898.
Mischel, W. (1970). Sex typing and socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Carmichael's handbook of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3-72). New York:
Wiley.
O'Neill, S. A., & Boulton, M. J. (1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical
instruments: a function of gender? Psychology of Music, 24, 171-183.
Pickering, S., & Repacholi, B. (1999). The effect of musician gender on children‘s
instrument preferences. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child
Development Biennial Meeting, Albuquerque.
Serbin, L.A., Powlishta, K.K., & Gulko, J. (1993) The development of sex-typing in
middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 58.
15
Signorella, M. L., Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (1993). Development differences in
children’s gender schemata about others: a meta-analytic review.
Developmental Review, 13, 147-183.
Tarnowski, S. M. (1993). Gender bias and musical instrument preference. Update:
The Applications of Research in Music Education, 12(1), 14-21.
Weeks, O. N. M., & Pryor Porter, E. (1983). A second look at the impact of
nontraditional vocational role models and curriculum on the vocational role
preferences of kindergarten children. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 23, 6471.
Williams, F., LaRose, R., & Frost, F. (1981). Children, television and sex-role
stereotyping. New York: Praeger Publishers.
16